fire_forcefandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Special Fire Force Company 8
Mission Tab The Mission kind of makes the article look really long and kind of confusing in my opinion, so to resolve it, could we make a tabber for the "Missions"?--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 14:31, December 20, 2015 (UTC) :Ech. Looks fine to me the way it is now imo.--Omojuze (talk) 14:35, December 20, 2015 (UTC) ::Remove participants because it can be covered in the mission description. --Maki Oze (talk) 14:46, December 20, 2015 (UTC) :::Tabber is something to avoid for the body of an article. Tabber relies on Javascript and there are people out there who don't have it enabled in their browsers. There is no fallback if JS is disabled, which means large sections of text would be missing. Tabber is kept exclusively for use in images as that kind of information is not necessary to be displayed if the user disables JS and should not be used to simply "hide" content on the basis of "the page is too long". --''Saju '' 14:49, December 20, 2015 (UTC) ::::@Maki Oze: The problem is is that it's an easy way to list all the participants. For example, if the 8th Brigade gets 21 members total in the future, but only 15 of them participate in a mission, we'll have to list all of the participants, and that would make the paragraph very very long >_<. It's easier to do the way it is now, a.k.a. separately.--Omojuze (talk) 15:26, December 20, 2015 (UTC) :::::I don't think any article needs a tab atm if ever. I edited the mission description to acknowledge the participants and since the descriptions already cover the mission status , i removed both the missions status/participants since its repetition.--Sarutobii2 (talk) 22:33, January 4, 2016 (UTC) ::::::My argument for keeping the participants: The problem with not listing them is that the 'whole brigade' was not yet whole in chapters 0, 1 and 2 and if more members show up we would have to make changes again so this way is more beneficial. Also it makes the provided information neutral in the sense of time frame. :] -- Knight_of_Jackal talk  23:21, January 4, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Didn't see someone replied... Keeping participants is the opposite thing to do when this discussion is addressing the article being long. The mission description reflects what happens on the mission, not what happens afterwards like someone else joining. So saying, entire, all members or whole is correct. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 00:32, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::The idea of "all participants participated at that time" breaks the fourth wall and that is something that most wikis I am aware of avoid is confusing and somewhat incorrect. We could try shortening the descriptions to 1-2 short sentences however. The whole brigade also might not work with other brigades and does not with the 5th brigade.-- Knight_of_Jackal talk  00:49, January 5, 2016 (UTC) If we had to list every participant in the description it would make it even longer. For example not everyone in the brigade participated with rescuing Mamoru and Iris did not do anything during the mission to defeat Saeko; How would people know that she had participated otherwise? 'The whole brigade' to people who do not know also implies that Arthur had participated which is false.-- Knight_of_Jackal talk  00:52, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :That's not breaking the fourth wall, that documenting the mission description Omojuze. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 00:55, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::It breaks the fourth wall because the reader the must expect who are in the brigade at the time. And I am not Omojuze and I am saddened to hear you think that. Jabberjackey had a point there are some really mean people here on this wiki :[-- Knight_of_Jackal talk  01:03, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::That doesn't break the fourth wall and if you have a solution to making the missions shorter instead of the opposite im all ears. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 01:21, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::Why does everything has to be short? The participants section only adds a single line of text. Removing it does not shorten the article much. I/we could try shortening the descriptions to 1-2 sentences. And it does break the fourth wall through the explanation which I have already provided :]-- Knight_of_Jackal talk  01:26, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::::Because the length is the issue at hand and that single line of text is just repeating what can be covered in the description by saying 1 word in its place. And your explanation is wrong, not much more to say on the matter. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 01:34, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Time changes and with that so do the members of the brigade(s). So saying 'the whole brigade' does break the fourth wall when referring to 4/6(+ in the future) members even with the reference that provides the chapter in which the mission began. :[ So that is not wrong because It breaks the fourth wall as the reader is expected to look and know when exactly the mission took place. This wouldn't be an issue however if the numbers of the brigade members didn't change. I frankly have no issues with the current length except maybe for the last one but the description of that one could be shortened.-- Knight_of_Jackal talk  02:02, January 5, 2016 (UTC) I don't know what happened here but.. I'll be in the chat as soon as possible, maybe around 4:30pm UK time, I'd like if you guys could accompany me so we could talk about this.--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 08:28, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :Its called a talk page because that's were the talking is done ;) --Sarutobii2 (talk) 08:40, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::Yeah well I'm asking if you would join me in the chat because I think a lot of the time you guys forget or don't care that all the activity going on here is shown in the mainspace and doesn't have a positive affect on it whatsoever, in fact, as shown on external websites, it's having s very negative impact and I don't like that. For that reason I'm asking you stop talking about such matters until we speak in the chat, thanks.--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 08:48, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::Nothing either of us has said is negative to the wiki. We're simply discussing the matter at hand like countless of other wiki's do. So since i can't join chat later, i ask you to keep the discussion in 1 place for my sake and eveyone else that doesn't want the disussion to take place behind closed doors in chat. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 09:25, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::The thing I shouldn't even be here right now as I'm at school, and I'm wasting data lol, but it's all worth. I can't really proceed to talk here rn since I don't have the school, but otherwise I would have said yes. Once I get home I'll see what I can do, and maybe I'll be here at a late time so that might suit you better.--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 09:37, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::::That's cool Gouenji (Y). I finished trying to convince Knight why shortening it was the solution, but i gave up. So unless either you or Maki have anything more to say, the discussion seems to be over. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 09:51, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Alright, I hope it is :) For anyone reading, I'm still going to pop in the chat later on just to catch up on things, so come also if you want o/--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 09:59, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::::::~hahahahaha~ This made me laugh so hard, Saru you really screwed up (You thought you were so smart but yet you're so not). Glad to see I'm not the only jerk who is/was here, eh Saru? And to Jackal: Please don't refer to me like that, like I'm some sort of disease, don't forget all the good stuff I have done here :)--Omojuze (talk) 11:00, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::Coming in here guns blazing and insulting people, nice to see you never change Omojuze. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 11:17, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::Omo, I'd appreciate it if you didn't provoke Saru or anyone else. Also nice to see you're back \o/ Lets have a positive return please, I really don't want any beef.--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 11:34, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::::Emm... Sorry to break it to you pal but I'm not returning "per say" (nor will I do that in the future). I won't be editing mainspace nor helping with translations and such. Just saw this and had to reply.--Omojuze (talk) 11:49, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::::I thought you'd say that. :) If that's your decision, fine. I'll continue to work my utter best with the mainspace and hope that those more reliable users will also continue to prosper the wiki.--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 11:57, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :Can every single one of you stop provoking each other? Stop taking offence to every little statement or miswritten response, there is absolutely no need for it. I am getting tired of this wiki and am very close to leaving and letting everyone here bicker amongst themselves until people stop caring. --''Saju '' 12:09, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::Good luck Gouenji. I can honestly say that you deserve better and that you're the only good thing about this place :D--Omojuze (talk) 12:12, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::Also I find it funny how Spey has the liberties of deleting Saru and Jackal's conversation without even consulting with them but when I wanted to delete ours I was blocked. Real fair Spey, real fair...--Omojuze (talk) 12:14, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::Omojuze, if you are here simply to stir up drama and trouble, then I suggest ceasing such behaviour or you will be blocked again. The reasoning for why I deleted the conversation is listed on the recent changes, not my problem if you don't like the reason I gave. --''Saju '' 12:22, January 5, 2016 (UTC) :::::hypocrisy at it's finest. Ech, I won't be returning here anytime soon anyway so you don't really need to block me unless it makes you feel like a big man :3--Omojuze (talk) 12:25, January 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Bygones be bygones. I for one do not regret this as it made me realise that Omojuze was not the only root of the problem here. Let us stop fighting and to Sarutobii2 please do not make assumptions of people just because they do not agree with you on a single thing. Why have consensus in the first place then? :]-- Knight_of_Jackal talk  15:10, January 5, 2016 (UTC) The conversation is far preceded what's necessary of it, so let's all just stop commenting here, me included.--GouenjiShuuya'123 (talk) 15:29, January 5, 2016 (UTC)